There is today much interest in research of neuronal substrata in metaphor processing. It has been suggested that the right hemisphere yields a key role in the comprehension of figurative language (non-literal) and, particularly, in metaphors. Figurative language is included in pragmatics, a branch of linguistics that researches the use of language, in opposition to the study of the system of language. There lingers, though, an open debate in respect to the identification of the specific aspects concerning semantics, as opposed to those dominated by pragmatics. Can studies from neuronal correlates clarify questions that relate to semantics/pragmatics representation? I shall analyze neuroscientific developments about implicit language to attempt to understand, in section 2, scientific techniques available and more suitable to the phenomenology of the act of understanding an implicit, figurative or implicated message in a certain language game. To do so, I shall start by reviewing the studies in philosophy of language, and accommodate the development of the research in pragmatics underlying metaphor, particularly, in Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein. Finally, I discuss the possibility of interpretative capabilities being socioculturally grounded. I expect this methodological analysis to contribute to the enlightenment of the problem of phenomenology of intersubjective pragmatics, and to its future experimental paradigms.
Albertazzi, L. (Ed.). (2000). Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach. John Benjamins Publishing.
Altmann, G.T.M. (2006). History of Psycholinguistics. in K. Brown (ed). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition). Elsevier.
Austin, J.L. (1979). Philosophical papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J.L. (1962). Sense and Sensibilia. (Warnock, ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beaty, R.E., Silvia, P.J., & Benedek, M. (2017). Brain networks underlying novel metaphor production. Brain and Cognition, 111, 163-170.
Baker, C.L., & McCarthy, J.J. (Eds). (1981). The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beeman, M.J., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Complementary right-and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(1), 2-8.
Borg, E. (2007). Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics (pp. 339-359). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beeman, M., Friedman, R.B., Grafman, J., Perez, E., Diamond, S., & Lindsay, M.B. (1994). Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 26-45.
Blumenthal, A.L. (1987). The emergence of psycholinguistics. Synthese, 72, 313–323.
Bloomfield, L. (1914). Introduction to the study of language. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., Frackowiak, R.S.J., & Frith, C.D. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain, 117, 1241–1253.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brownell, H.H., Potter, H.H., Bihrle, A.M., & Gardner, H. (1986). Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 29, 310–321.
Buswell, G.T. (1922). Fundamental reading habits: A study of their development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
Cardillo, E.R., Watson, C., & Chatterjee, A. (2016). Stimulus needs are a moving target: 240 additional matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor. Behavior research methods, 1-13.
Catania, A.C. (1998). The taxonomy of verbal behavior. In: K.A. Lattal, & M. Perone (Eds), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 405–433). New York: Plenum.
Caplan, R., & Dapretto, M. (2001). Making sense during conversation: An fMRI study. NeuroReport, 12, 3625–3632.
Cattell, J. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11, 63–65.
Delbrück, B. (1901). Grundfragen der Sprachforschung; mit rücksicht auf W. Wundt’s Sprachpsychologie. Strassburg: Trabner.
Dronkers, N.F. (1996). A new brain region for coordinating speech articulation. Nature, 384 (6605), 159.
Elmer, S. (2016). Broca Pars Triangularis Constitutes a “Hub” of the Language-Control Network during Simultaneous Language Translation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10.
Eviatar, Z., & Just., M.A. (2006). Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension. Neurpsychologia, 44, 2348-2359.
Ferstl, E.C., & Von Cramon, D.Y. (2001). The role of coherence and cohesion in text comprehension: An event-related fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 325–340.
Frege, G. (1879). Concept script, a formal language of pure thought modelled upon that of arithmetic. In: J. Van Heijenoort (ed.) From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic: 1879-1931. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1967.
Frege, G. (1948 ), Sense and reference. The philosophical review, 57(3), 209-230.
Freud, S. (1975). The psychopathology of everyday life (Trans. A. Tyson). Harmondsworth, UK:Penguin (originally published 1901).
Gallagher, S. (2016). On the limits of finding human identity in the brain. Modern Believing, 57(2), 121-130.
Gallagher, H.L., & Frith, C.D. (2003). Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 77–83.
Gallagher, S., & Hutto, D. (2008). Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity, 12, 17-38.
Gernsbacher, M.A. (1990) Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.
Grice, H.P. (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
Huey, E.B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Macmillan.
Hutto, D.D. (2012). Folk psychological narratives: The sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. MIT Press.
King, J., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. Semantics versus pragmatics, 111-164.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive science, 4(2), 195-208.
Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Levelt, W. (2014). A history of psycholinguistics: The pre-Chomskyan era. Oxford University Press.
Maguire, E.A., Frith, C.D., & Morris, R.G.M. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of comprehension and memory: The importance of prior knowledge. Brain, 122, 1839–1850.
Mason, R.A., & Just, M.A. (2004). How the brain processes causal inferences in text: A theoretical account of generation and integration component processes utilizing both cerebral hemispheres. Psychological Science, 15, 1–7.
Mason, R.A., & Just, M.A. (2006). Neuroimaging contributions to the understanding of discourse processes. Handbook of psycholinguistics, 799.
Minsky, M. (Ed.) (1968). Semantic information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Murphy, G.L., & Medin, D.L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological review, 92(3), 289.
Quillian, M.R. (1968). Semantic memory. In: M. Minksy (Ed.), Semantic information processing. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, 227–270.
Myers, J.L., & O’Brien, E.J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.
Myers, J.L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S.A. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(4), 453-465.
Reber, A.S. (1987). The rise and (surprisingly rapid) fall of psycholinguistics. Synthese, 72: 325-339.
Recanati, F. (2005). Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In: G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 171-196.
Reboul A. & Moeschler J. (1998), Pragmatique du discours. De l’interprétation de l’énoncé à l’interprétation du discours, Paris, Armand Colin (U linguistique).
Reichle, E.D. & Mason, R.A. (2006). The neural signatures of causal inferences: A preliminary computational account of brain-imaging and behavioral data. In: F. Schmalhofer, & C.A. Perfetti (Eds), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Robertson, D.A., Gernsbacher, M.A., Guidotti, S.J., Robertson, R.R.W., Irwin, W., Mock, B.J., & Campana, M.E. (2000). Functional neuroanatomy of the cognitive process of mapping during discourse comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 255–260.
Russell, B. (2009). The philosophy of logical atomism. Routledge.
Russell, B. (2005). On denoting. Mind, 114(456), 873-887.
Searle, J.R. (1985). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1965). What is a Speech Act?. England: Penguin books.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626). Cambridge university press.
Schmidt, G.L., & Seger, C.A. (2009). Neural correlates of metaphor processing: the roles of figurativeness, familiarity and difficulty. Brain and cognition, 71(3), 375-386.
Skinner, B.F. (1983). Verbal Behavior, 1957. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D., (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (Vol. 142). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stanley, J., & Gendler Szabó, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language, 15(2-3), 219-261.
St George, M., Kutas, M., Martinez, A., & Sereno, M.I. (1999). Semantic integration in reading: engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse processing. Brain, 122(7), 1317-1325.
Tinker, M.A. (1936). Reliability and validity of eye-movement measures of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 732–746.
Tomitch, L.M.B., Just, M.A., & Newman, S.D. (2004). Main idea identification: a functional imaging study of a complex language comprehension process. In C. Rodrigues, & L.M.B. Tomitch (Eds.), Linguagem e o Cérebro Humano: Contribuições multidisciplinares (pp. 167-175). ATMED editora, Portoalegre.
Tremblay, P., & Dick, A.S. (2016). Broca and Wernicke are dead, or moving past the classic model of language neurobiology. Brain and Language, 162, 60-71.
Thompson, H.E., Henshall, L., & Jefferies, E. (2016). The role of the right hemisphere in semantic control: A case-series comparison of right and left hemisphere stroke. Neuropsychologia, 85, 44-61.
Van Dijk, T., Kintsch, T., (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Xu, J., Kemeny, S., Park, G., Frattali, C., & Braun, A. (2005). Language in context: Emergent features of word, sentence, and narrative comprehension. NeuroImage, 25, 1002–1015.
Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 1–191.